DOCSLIB.ORG

What the First Coordinated Annual Review on Defence Reveals Cards on the Table

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What the First Coordinated Annual Review on Defence Reveals Cards on the Table 2020 I ISSUE #20 EUROPEAN DEFENCE MATTERS What the first Coordinated Annual Review on Defence reveals CARDs on the table > A ‘STRATEGIC COMPASS’ > CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN > EDA INNOVATION FOR THE EU’S CSDP DEFENCE PRIZE 2020 EEAS’ Charles Fries The Commission’s new And the on what to expect Incubation Forum winners are... CONTENTS WELCOME 3 COVER STORY: 1st COORDINATED ANNUAL REVIEW ON DEFENCE (CARD) > First CARD report published Wake-up call and pathfinder: analysis of the main CARD findings & recommendations 4 > After the first CARD: What’s next? Giving the floor to Member States – interviews 10 > Arie Jan De Waard, Armaments Director, The Netherlands 11 > Simona Cojocaru, Defence State Secretary, Romania 12 > Saturnino Suanzes Fernández de Cañete, Capability Director, Spain 13 Opinion Editorial: General Éric Bellot des Minières 14 The view of the EU Military Staff (EUMS): 04 Vice-Admiral Hervé Bléjean 16 © Belgian Armed Forces, Vincent Bordignon > From CARD to PESCO How EDA supports the implementation of PESCO projects 18 FOCUS > German EU Presidency Strengthening the EU on security and defence: Opinion Editorial by German Defence State Secretary, Benedikt Zimmer 24 OPINION > EU Strategic Compass 11 Netherlands The of Defence © Ministry 12 of Defence © Romanian Ministry 13 of Defence © Spanish Ministry Concrete solutions for concrete challenges: article by Charles Fries, EEAS Deputy Secretary General for CSDP and Crisis Response 27 IN THE FIELD > Advancing Circular Economy in Defence > The road towards the ‘Incubation Forum for Circular Economy in European Defence’ 29 > Interview with European Commission (DG ENV) Director-General Florika Fink-Hooijer 32 34 © European Space Agency ESA > Three questions to... Luxembourg’s Defence Minister François Bausch 33 Editor-in-Chief CONTACTS Helmut Brüls SPOTLIGHT Elisabeth Schoeffmann > EDA-EU SatCen cooperation Design Head of Media & Communication Simon Smith Associates Natural partners 34 Helmut Brüls Printing Media & Communication Officer Drukkerij Hendrix NV European Defence Agency INDUSTRY TALK Kiezel Kleine-Brogel 55, B-3990 Peer Rue des Drapiers 17-23 Belgium > “We need to collaborate to create our own joint capabilities” B-1050 Brussels This document is published by EDA in Interview with Oliver Väärtnõu, CEO of Cybernetica 37 www.eda.europa.eu the interests of exchange of information Contact: [email protected] Front cover image; © Shutterstock INNOVATION CORNER Other images; EDA, Shutterstock, Catalogue number > EDA Defence Innovation Prize 2020 Thinkstock, iStockphoto QU-AC-20-002-EN-N ISSN (2443-5511) “And the winners are...” 40 EDA is a member of the European Military Press Association QUO VADIS EU DEFENCE? © European Defence Agency (EDA) November 2020. All rights reserved. The entire contents of this publication > A look beyond 2030 are protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, By Frédéric Mauro (IRIS) 42 without the prior permission of EDA. The reproduction of advertisements in this publication does not in any way imply endorsement of their content by EDA. The views expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policy of EDA. 2 www.eda.europa.eu WELCOME Playing the CARD right To solve a problem efficiently, good practice calls first for a thorough and honest analysis of what is wrong only then to be followed by tailored corrective action. The EU’s endeavour to overcome the fragmentation of its defence landscape and move towards a more homogeneous, collaborative, efficient and interoperable Europe of defence, follows the same two-tier approach. The first Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), just endorsed by Defence Ministers, is a crucial piece of work as it 18 offers both elements of the above-described remedy: a plain © French Marine Nationale description of the shortcomings of purely national defence planning and capability development done in isolation; and plenty of concrete recommendations on how to do things better in the future, together. Now, it’s up to Member States to make the best of them. In the following pages, we analyse the key CARD findings and recommendations and take Member States’ pulse on the potential take-up of the collaborative opportunities identified by the CARD. We also look at the increasing number of PESCO projects whose implementation benefit from EDA support; also a reminder that the CARD’s goal is to spark collaborative projects which must eventually lead to joint defence capabilities. 32 33 We also hear from the German EU Presidency’s defence & security © European Commission © MoD Luxembourg priorities and get an insight into the ongoing work on the EU’s Strategic Compass. Furthermore, we put the spotlight on the Commission’s new Incubation Forum on Circular Economy in European defence as well as on EDA’s cooperation with the EU Satellite Centre. Finally, we can present the winners of the 2020 EDA Defence Innovation Prize. We hope you will enjoy this magazine. Should you have comments or recommendations, please get in touch: [email protected] 24 Elisabeth Schoeffmann Helmut Brüls © Bundeswehr - Jane Schmidt EDA Head of Media & Communication Editor-in-Chief 37 EUROPEAN DEFENCE MATTERS I 2020 I Issue #20 3 COVER STORY – COORDINATED ANNUAL REVIEW ON DEFENCE (CARD) First CARD report published Wake-up call and pathfinder Frank in pointing to existing shortcomings, yet constructive by offering options for improvements to come: the first Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), steered by the European Defence Agency (EDA) as the CARD penholder in close coordination with the EU Military Staff (EUMS) over the past 12 months, has achieved its double goal which was to review participating Member States’ defence activities in order to provide a realistic picture of Europe’s defence landscape and to promote cooperation opportunities for joint defence capability development. 4 www.eda.europa.eu The first CARD report, presented by EDA months, saw EDA collecting and analysing defence landscape remains fragmented to Defence Ministers on 20 November, is information gathered from individual Member and lacks coherence in several aspects, the outcome of an innovative approach States on their respective national defence notably as regards defence capabilities launched four years ago when the EU Global plans, in order to identify current trends and their development: existing capabilities Strategy (EUGS) called for the “gradual (defence spending, ongoing capability are characterised by a very high diversity synchronisation and mutual adaptation programmes) and future cooperation of types in major equipment and of national defence planning cycles and opportunities. The rationale behind the different levels of modernisation and of capability development practices” to CARD is that the regular reviews, to be interoperability, including logistic systems enhance the convergence between Member done every two years, will lead over time to and supply chains. What’s more, the EU’s States’ military assets and boost defence more synergies and increased coherence Military Level of Ambition is currently cooperation among them. between Member States´ defence planning, not achievable and the commitment to spending and capability development, Common Security and Defence Policy That said, this was quickly done: EU through targeted cooperation. (CSDP) missions and operations is very countries approved the CARD modalities in low with strong disparities between May 2017, concluded a test cycle in late 2018 Plain analysis participating Member States in terms before kicking off the first full CARD cycle in The CARD report’s assessment of the of engagement frameworks and overall September 2019 which, over a period of 10 current picture is unequivocal: Europe’s operational effort. Bordignon Vincent © Belgian Armed Forces, EUROPEAN DEFENCE MATTERS I 2020 I Issue #20 5 COVER STORY – COORDINATED ANNUAL REVIEW ON DEFENCE (CARD) Admittedly, the new EU defence cooperation This is also evidenced by the fact that “Europe’s defence tools launched since 2016 – the 2018 EU most Member States miss out on meeting capability development priorities resulting the collective European benchmarks on landscape remains from the revised Capability Development ‘collaborative equipment procurement’ fragmented and Plan (CDP), the CARD initiation, the (minimum 35% of total equipment spending) Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and on ‘collaborative defence R&T’ (minimum lacks coherence in and the European Defence Fund (EDF) – have 20% of total defence R&T spending), which several aspects” led to greater interaction among Member were commonly agreed more than a decade States as regards cooperation, including ago and adopted as individual PESCO dedicated projects in the PESCO framework. commitments in December 2017. However, they are too recent to deliver a significant and positive effect on guiding Consequently, defence spending on the trends on defence, on de-fragmentation collaborative projects remains scarce, and on increased operational commitment, also because budget allocations made by the CARD report stresses: “National defence Ministries of Defence to previously launched interests and related approaches continue national programmes leave limited margins to prevail”. for manoeuvre for collaborative defence spending until the mid-2020s. In the same Multinational
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EN Council Conclusions on EU Relations with EFTA Countries
    COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION EN Council conclusions on EU relations with EFTA countries 3060th GENERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 14 December 2010 The Council adopted the following conclusions: "1. The Council has assessed the development of relations between the EU and the four Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) since the adoption of its last conclusions on the subject in December 2008. Generally, EU relations with the EFTA countries, which were already considered to be very good and close in 2008, have further intensified in the past two years (details on developments are set out below in country- specific paragraphs). The Council is looking forward to continue the positive relationship with the EFTA countries and to deepen it in the future. It will reassess the state of relations between the EU and the EFTA countries in two years. 2. The Council appreciates the financial contributions of the EFTA countries to the economic and social cohesion in the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland (the "EEA EFTA States") recently committed themselves to a substantial increase of their continued contributions. The EU is looking forward to a constructive dialogue with Switzerland on the review of the current mechanism, expiring in June 2012. The Council hopes that a mutually acceptable solution will be found with the aim of reducing economic and social disparities in the EU. 3. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are integrated in the internal market through the EEA Agreement of 1994. This Agreement functions properly so long as all Contracting Parties incorporate the full body of the relevant EU acquis relating to the internal market into their national law.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Defence: the White Book Implementation Process
    STUDY Requested by the SEDE Subcommittee EU Defence: The White Book implementation process Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union PE 603.871 - December 2018 EN DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY EU Defence: The White Book implementation process ABSTRACT The question of a defence White Book at European level has been under discussion for some time. Many voices, particularly in the European Parliament, are pushing for such an initiative, while others consider that it is not only unnecessary, but could even dangerously divide Europeans. Concretely, the question cannot be tackled separately from that of defence planning and processes which underpin the development of military capabilities, as White Books are often the starting point for these. Within the European Union, however, there is not just one, but three types defence planning: the national planning of each of the Member States; planning within the framework of NATO (the NATO Defence Planning Process) and, finally, the European Union’s planning, which has developed in stages since the Helsinki summit of 1999 and comprises many elements. Its best-known component - but by no means not the only one - is the capability development plan established by the European Defence Agency. How do all these different planning systems coexist? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Answering these preliminary questions is essential in mapping the path to a White Book. This is what this study sets out to do. EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/23 EN December 2018 - PE 603.871 © European Union, 2018 Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies This document was requested by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) on 7 July 2018 Manuscript was completed on 12 December 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Defence Cooperation Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)
    EU Defence Cooperation Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) Introduced by the Lisbon Treaty on European Union (article 42.6, 46 and Protocol 10), the PESCO is a framework and process to deepen defence cooperation between those EU Member States, who are capable and willing to do so. 25 EU Member States have joined PESCO and subscribed to more binding commitments to invest, plan, develop and operate defence capabilities more together, within the Union framework. The objective is to jointly arrive at a coherent full spectrum of defence capabilities available to Member States for national and multinational (EU, NATO, UN, ... ) missions and operations. This will enhance the EU’s capacity as an international security actor, contribute to the protection of the EU citizens and maximise the effectiveness of defence spending. The key difference between PESCO and other forms of cooperation is the legally binding nature of the commitments undertaken by the 25 Member States which participate in PESCO. The list of ambitious and more binding common commitments undertaken by each of the participating PESCO contains 20 individual commitments, split into the five key areas set out by art.2 of Protocol N°10 on PESCO annexed to the Lisbon Treaty. PESCO projects An initial list of 17 projects to be developed under PESCO was adopted by the Council on 6 March 2018. A second batch of 17 projects to be developed under PESCO was adopted by the Council on 19 November 2018. And finally, a third batch of 13 additional projects to be developed under PESCO was adopted by the Council on 12 November 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Nato and Eu: Towards a Constructive Relationship?
    between the two organisations on the ground. The question that has to be asked, therefore, is if it is really the case that the establishment of a constructive relationship between NATO and the COMMON SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY EU is in effect being held hostage to the long-standing disagreements about Cyprus. NATO and EU: Two planets in the same city Towards a Constructive Relationship? Trine Flockhart Senior Researcher, DIIS The relationship between NATO and the EU has never been a close one as the two organisa- tions have historically tended to focus on different agendas and different policy areas, roughly divided between a focus on economic and development issues and a focus on military and security issues. However, after a rather unconstructive and competitive relationship during most of the 1990s, the first decade of the 21st century has witnessed convergence between the two organisations. Through the successful establishment of the European Security and he security challenges of the 21st century are likely to be both multifaceted, highly complex Defence Policy (ESDP) in 1999, the EU has taken on a much greater role as a security actor, and of an increasingly interdependent and global nature. The international community whereas NATO’s experience in the Balkans and Afghanistan has clearly revealed that military T is therefore faced with problems that cannot easily fit into traditional boxes and which solutions alone cannot bring peace and prosperity to post-conflict societies. require a so-called comprehensive approach, with emphasis on cooperation between different international actors and between different agencies across the traditional divides that separate Convergence between the two organisations in policy areas has been accompanied by geo- civilian and military approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • EURODRONES Inc
    EURODRONES Inc. A report by Ben Hayes, Chris Jones & Eric Töpfer PUBLICATION INFO Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the input of Mathias Monroy, Stefanie Sifft, Mathias Vermeulen and Wim Zwijnenburg for their suggestions regarding aspects of the report. Copyright and publication details This report is published by the Transnational Institute and Statewatch under ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as pri- vate individuals/”fair dealing” is allowed. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed provided the organi- sation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant repro- graphic rights organisation (eg. Copyright Licensing Agen- cy in the UK), with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law. Authors Ben Hayes, Chris Jones & Eric Toepfer Design Hans Roor at Jubels, Amsterdam Contact Transnational Institute (TNI) PO Box 14656, 1001 LD, Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31-20-6626608 Email: [email protected] www.tni.org Statewatch PO Box 1516, London, N16 0EW England Tel: +44-207 697 4202 Email: [email protected] www.statewatch.org Amsterdam, February 2014 EURODRONES Inc. A report by Ben Hayes, Chris Jones & Eric Töpfer EURODRONES Inc. Contents 1. Introduction 7 2. Drones and the European Union: a lobbyist’s paradise 10 2.1. Summary 10 2.2. Reaching for the stars 11 2.3. The road to drone-ware 12 2.4. Establishing a favourable regulatory environment 14 2.5. Towards an EU drone policy 18 2.6. Going global: EU + USA = ICAO drone standards? 21 2.7. “Drone-washing”: the battle for hearts and minds 23 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Permanent Sovereign Cooperation (PESCO) to Underpin the EU Global Strategy Jo Coelmont
    No. 80 December 2016 Permanent Sovereign COoperation (PESCO) to Underpin the EU Global Strategy Jo Coelmont The EU now has a full-fledged Global in point. Clearly Member States are not averse Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy – to the principle of PESCO as such nor to the and defence. Just in time. The EUGS permanent mutual commitment that it entails. includes a clear political level of ambition Then why are they reluctant to launch PESCO as well as a call to define the in the EU framework? corresponding military level of ambition and the required capabilities. The list of SOVEREIGNTY? strategic military shortfalls, first identified The answer is simple: PESCO‟s historic in 2000 at the start of the then European baggage. PESCO cannot be dissociated from Security and Defence Policy, will obviously how its initiators envisaged it during the grow still longer. For new tasks have to be European Convention back in 2003. At that integrated, while in the last fifteen years, in time the aim was not for PESCO to be as spite of all the good intentions about inclusive as possible, but rather to assemble “pooling and sharing”, not a single the happy few: “Those Member States whose existing strategic shortfall has been solved. military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and Because a shortfall cannot be pooled – one which have made more binding commitments can only share one’s frustration at that. No to one another in this area with a view to the wonder therefore that Permanent most demanding missions”, who would agree Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is once on “objectives concerning the level of again on the agenda as a potential game investment expenditure on defence changer.
    [Show full text]
  • Nato Hq Office of the Gender Advisor International Military Staff 7 March 2016
    NATO HQ OFFICE OF THE GENDER ADVISOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY STAFF 7 MARCH 2016 Table of Contents Chapter Page Introduction . 5 Executive Summary . 7 1. Representation of Men and Women in the Armed Forces in 2014 . 8 2. Applications and Successful Recruitments in 2014 . 11 3. Retention Statistics in 2014 . 13 4. Services and Ranks in 2014 . .14 5. Integration of Gender Perspectives in 2014 . 16 6. Conclusion . 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Table of Contents Chapter Page 7. 2014 National Reports from NATO Nations 21 Albania . 22 Belgium . 25 Bulgaria . 28 Canada . 31 Croatia . 35 Czech Republic . 38 Denmark . 41 Estonia . 44 France . 45 Germany . 48 Greece . 51 Hungary . 54 Iceland . 56 Italy . 57 Latvia . 60 Lithuania . 62 Luxembourg . 65 Netherlands . 67 Norway . 71 Poland . 75 Portugal . 77 Romania . 81 Slovakia . 85 Slovenia . 87 Spain . 91 Turkey . 94 United Kingdom . 96 United States . 100 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Chapter Page 8. 2014 National Reports from NATO Partner Nations 105 Australia . 106 Austria . 116 Finland . 119 Georgia . 122 Ireland . 124 Japan . 127 Montenegro . 129 New Zealand . 132 Sweden . 135 Switzerland . 136 Ukraine . ..
    [Show full text]
  • Death of an Institution: the End for Western European Union, a Future
    DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? EGMONT PAPER 46 DEATH OF AN INSTITUTION The end for Western European Union, a future for European defence? ALYSON JK BAILES AND GRAHAM MESSERVY-WHITING May 2011 The Egmont Papers are published by Academia Press for Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations. Founded in 1947 by eminent Belgian political leaders, Egmont is an independent think-tank based in Brussels. Its interdisciplinary research is conducted in a spirit of total academic freedom. A platform of quality information, a forum for debate and analysis, a melting pot of ideas in the field of international politics, Egmont’s ambition – through its publications, seminars and recommendations – is to make a useful contribution to the decision- making process. *** President: Viscount Etienne DAVIGNON Director-General: Marc TRENTESEAU Series Editor: Prof. Dr. Sven BISCOP *** Egmont – The Royal Institute for International Relations Address Naamsestraat / Rue de Namur 69, 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone 00-32-(0)2.223.41.14 Fax 00-32-(0)2.223.41.16 E-mail [email protected] Website: www.egmontinstitute.be © Academia Press Eekhout 2 9000 Gent Tel. 09/233 80 88 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.academiapress.be J. Story-Scientia NV Wetenschappelijke Boekhandel Sint-Kwintensberg 87 B-9000 Gent Tel. 09/225 57 57 Fax 09/233 14 09 [email protected] www.story.be All authors write in a personal capacity. Lay-out: proxess.be ISBN 978 90 382 1785 7 D/2011/4804/136 U 1612 NUR1 754 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Aspect of Turkey – EU Relations
    CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DE FORMATION EUROPEENE INSTITUT EUROPEEN DES HAUTES ETUDES INTERNATIONALES DIPLOME DES HAUTES ETUDES EUROPEENNES ET INTERNATIONALES Trilingual Branch Security Aspect of Turkey – EU Relations Ceyhun Emre DOĞRU Research Directors: Claude Nigoul Dr. Matthias Waechter Nice, May 2009 TABLEOFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 DEVELOPMENTOFSECURITYRELATIONSINHISTORICALCONTEXT 3 A.TurkishForeignPolicyandItsFoundingPrinciples 3 B.ColdWar:APragmaticRapprochement 5 C.ThePost-ColdWarPeriod 7 I.TransformationoftheTurkishSecurityPolicy 7 II.Re-EmergenceofEuropeandtheESS 10 a.ImplicationsoftheMaastrichtTreaty 10 b.AnAppraisaloftheESS:TheContextandNature 11 D.AssessmentoftheHistory:ChangingFormofthePermanentInterdependence 20 SECURITYPOLICIESANDMUTUALCONTRIBUTIONS 22 A.ComparisonofSecurityUnderstandingsoftheEUandTurkey 22 I.Europe:HumanSecurity 22 II.Turkey:TraditionalStateSecurity 25 B.CommonForeignandSecurityPolicyoftheEU 27 I.HowtoAnalysetheCFSP 27 II.CFSP:InSearchofPolitisation 28 III.Efficiency–Consistency 31 C.TurkeyandCFSP:AnInteractioninProgress 32 I.EuropeanizationoftheTurkishSecurityPolicy 32 II.Turkey’sContributiontoCFSP 33 MUDDLINGTHROUGHINDEFENCEANDMILITARYASPECT 36 A.TurkeyinNATO 36 I.TransformationofNATOandTurkey 36 II.TurkeyandDifferentNATOPolicies 39 B.NATO–EURelations 41 I.EUinNATO:ESDIandESDP 41 a.EstablishmentofESDP:WhatAutonomyvis-à-visNATO? 41 b.EuropeanPillarwithinNATO:theBuildingofESDI 43 II.LegalBasisofCurrentRelationshipanditsOutcomes 43 a.FromWEUAgreementstoBerlinPlus 43 b.BerlinPlusinPractice
    [Show full text]
  • ISDS Analyses 2020/15
    Institute for Strategic and Defense Studies ISDS Analyses 2020/15. 23 04 2020 Anna Nádudvari – Alex Etl – Nikolett Bereczky:1 Quo vadis, PESCO? An analysis of cooperative networks and capability development priorities Executive Summary • Out of the 47 running PESCO projects, only 1/5 have more than 7 members, while almost half of the projects have only 3 or less participants. Based on coordination and membership accounts, France (31) Italy (26) Spain (24) Germany (16), as the Big Four, are the most involved participating Member States. Subsequently, with regards to Member States’ involvement in capability areas, the Big Four’s involvement is the most diverse, while Poland, the Czech Republic, Netherlands, and Greece are also involved in at least 5 key project areas out of 7. • Most PESCO projects contribute to general objectives of creating Enabling capabilities to operate autonomously within EU’s Level of Ambition (LoA), while high-end capability contributions are fewer, partly because PESCO projects contribute to Capability Development Priorities through complementing other activities and projects coordinated by EDA. Therefore, in some cases, the lack of PESCO projects aiming at these missing capability priorities can be explained by parallel EDA projects addressing those capability shortfalls. • Member states are rather aligning their PESCO capability developments with the Big Four than with anyone else. This makes the overall PESCO network fundamentally centralized, in which everyone is tied to the core, while the relations among the peripheral nodes are rather limited. • Central and Eastern European intra-regional PESCO relations are rather weak, since the participation in PESCO did not lead to the emergence of a strong and visible regional sub-cluster.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian Defence and Security Industries Association SECURE BORDERS
    1/2021 NORWEGIAN DEFENCE AND SECURITY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION SECURE BORDERS. SAVE LIVES. The Ranger® HDC MS provides exceptional long range performance with a variety of daylight sensors and options to help assess threats. Operators can discern between nuisance alarms and those requiring interdiction for border, coastal surveillance, and force protection surveillance. FLIR.COM/MTRANGERHDCMS CONTENTS CONTENTS: Editor-in-Chief: LEOPARD 2 MAIN BATTLE TANK M.Sc. Bjørn Domaas Josefsen A cornerstone in Europe’s land defence 2 APS TOTAL WAR Trophy active protection system on German Leopard 2 tanks 6 IN THE CYBER DOMAIN NORWEGIAN DEFENCE AND SECURITY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (FSI) 7 The entire civilised world, with the possible exception of a mr. DonAs the number of lives lost in war has been reduced during recent years, CYFOR the war in cyberspace is raging at full strength, and spreading to ever The Storting wants to increase the defensive capability new areas. In recent years, the cyber war has spread to include the of CYFOR 14 exertion of influence by foreign states on large population sections, to promote both commercial and political interests. PATRIOT The Swedish Patriot project enters a new phase 16 In the middle of all this, the cyber war continues to target critical infrastructure and how this infrastructure can be destroyed, or even BULLETIN BOARD FOR DEFENCE, INDUSTRY worse, controlled by a foreign power. AND TRADE Upgrading 3D radars of Germany Navy 19 Not least, the traditional cyber battle continues over information content, Patria AMVXP 8x8 test vehicles to Japan 20 such as insight into political and business processes, private and public European Patrol Corvette 22 databases, and perhaps most of all, access to sensitive technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Commission on the Defence Forces Submission by Commander Cathal Power, Irish Naval Service
    Commission on the Defence Forces Submission by Commander Cathal Power, Irish Naval Service “What a society gets in its armed services is exactly what it asks for, no more of no less. What it asks for tends to be a reflection of what it is. When a country looks at its fighting forces it is looking in a mirror; if the mirror is a true one the face that it sees there will be its own”. Sir John Hackett The Profession of Arms The 1962 Les Knowles Lectures, Trinity College I wish to open this submission to the Commission on the Defence Forces (CoDF) with a quotation from the son of an Irish emigrant to Australia, who served in the British Military through World War II. Are the Defence Forces therefore a reflection of an apathy in Ireland to the military obligations of a State, utilised to underpin a rules-based society? Ireland has, historically, not considered that it is essential to have a robust and capable military force, especially a maritime force. The lack of coherent maritime policies and a capable naval force is a function (or mistake, depending on your viewpoint) of our history. However, it is not something that was underestimated by the British Empire when they established our Dominion status in 1921. The UK ensured that they held on to the right to use and control our waters, thus reinforcing an inward-looking mindset on the island of Ireland. This quote, I hope sets the tone for what is laid out before the Commission and the onerous task ahead of it.
    [Show full text]